header-logo header-logo

07 July 2017
Issue: 7753 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employers to pay price

Higher sentences proposed for reckless & negligent employers

Employers who commit manslaughter could face higher custodial sentences, from eight to 18 years in the most serious cases, under draft guidelines drawn up by the Sentencing Council.

In a consultation published this week, ‘Manslaughter Guideline Consultation’, the council proposes tougher penalties for gross negligence manslaughter, where the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, which causes the death of the victim and amounts to a criminal act or omission. This could include employers who ‘completely disregard’ the safety of employees or doctors whose care of a patient falls far below the required standard, the Council said. Currently, there is only limited sentencing guidance for manslaughter, and these are the first set of comprehensive guidelines for the offence.

The Council said its proposals were based on an analysis of current sentencing practice, with little change in sentence levels for most areas apart from in some gross negligence cases. It said judges currently tend to order more lenient sentences in gross negligence cases where, for example, employers ignore safety in order to cut costs.

Sentencing Council member Mr Justice Holroyde said: ‘The guidelines aim to ensure sentencing that properly reflects both the culpability of the offender and the seriousness of the harm which has been caused.’

Some 16 offenders were sentenced for manslaughter by gross negligence in 2014, incurring custodial sentences ranging from nine months to 12 years, four of which were suspended. The median sentence length was four years.

The consultation ends on 10 October 2017.

Issue: 7753 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll